quote:Why? I admit that I would LOVE the opportunity to pull the plug on every child predator alive. But what does it help, really?
I would imagine people would think twice about some of the things they think of doing if they knew for a fact that they would indeed be executed if/when caught.
And that's where I agree with kq. Let's say that Singapore's laws are designed, not as much with then intention of just and fair punishment, but rather as a deterrent for future criminals, then it is absolutely imperative that they enforce those laws.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know this isn't as relevant in this case if he admitted to drug trafficking, but it's a reason to be against the death penalty in general.
If you escort someone out of the Vatican for bare legs, and then they go home and change and come back, or you realize outside in the sunlight that they're really just very tight skin-coloured pants and they didn't have bare legs at all, you can let them back in as a productive Catholic who will throw money in the collection dish or help the needy and then go home to their families who need them.
Dead Catholics in tight skin-coloured pants will never contribute much to society.
Edit: Maybe it is relevant here after all. Didn't an article mention he had changed? I know that has to be taken with a grain of salt, but rehabilitation is possible. Death only ensures someone will *never* change.
Posts: 624 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
I got this link from a pro-death penalty website. Interestingly, there's not much favorable to be found in the data on the death penalty. The counter-arguments (that it works) are that: 1) We don't know how many criminals decided to avoid their particular crime because they might be killed for it, and 2) The suffering of the victims is enough to justify killing someone.
This is, of course, the debate in Western countries.
Places like Singapore and certain Arab countries, and probably a few others I don't know of, kill people for things that the rest of the world has found other ways of dealing with. Whether those ways are more or less effective, of course, is a question that statistics ultimately may not be able to answer.
Going back on topic, though, I propose that if we all sat back and tried to list the attributes of a legal system that we admired, consistent application would be one thing we could agree on. But it would not be the only thing. My list would include (in no particular order), a sense of balance (the punishment fits the crime), a method for judicial review and periodic revision of the laws, a high level of professionalism among prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges and court personnel, a penal system that is oriented toward rehabilitation, and probably a few more things if I really sat back and thought about it.
I would hesitate to congratulate or condemn Singapore until I knew more about how their entire justice system operates. Consistent application of draconian laws is not inherently better than inconsistent application of under-the-table bribery of high officials, IMHO. It deals with one problem, but creates others.
If we can review them as a whole, then, is there much to be admired, or much to recoil from in horror as we look at their application of laws and treatment of those convicted?
Question for kq: Were you applauding their consistency because of the fact that our application of the death penalty in the US is in such a shambles, and that one big reason for that is inconsistency?
I can see wishing the US were more consistent, but that wouldn't necessarily make me applaud consistency where-ever I saw it. I'd have to like other aspects of their system before I gave them a thumbs up.
On this issue, I think they are way out of balance. Killing anyone (citizen or foreigner) for even a serious drug violation strikes me as over the line of justifiable severity. It doesn't seem to fit the crime...by a WIDE margin. So, I can't applaud their system just because it would've equally been applied to the president's son or the lowliest citizen.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If we can review them as a whole, then, is there much to be admired, or much to recoil from in horror as we look at their application of laws and treatment of those convicted?
One thing to consider is the differences in society and culture between the United States and Singapore. My understanding, and this may be wrong, is that the dominant culture in Singapore greatly prizes order. My experience in Asia is that human life isn't valued quite as much as it is here. (Don't get me wrong - it is valued - but it isn't quite sanctified to the extent it is in America) It is quite possible that Singapore's harsh laws reflect the culture of it's inhabitants.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incidentally, most Asian countries have harsh punishments for drug traffickers. In Thailand, you can expect a long prison sentence, unless you can bribe your way out. At least Singapore is not quite as corrupt. Of course, in Thailand, you only get a prison sentence when you are caught running drugs if you are lucky. The Thai police have had it, and they often just summarily execute drug dealers. (Personal experience here, had an acquaintance that got whacked). Judicial execution beats extrajudicial execution any day.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sri Lanka is another country that has the death penalty on the books for drug offenses, even though it hasn't been used in that way for a lot of years. Lately, however, there has been news that the death penalty will be used for drug offenses again. So, if you're planning on trafficking in drugs, this is another country you shouldn't visit.
Yep, it's common in this region.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Would you agree that the society there places less value on the individual, and that this might account for wider acceptance of the death penalty for what other societies would consider a lesser offense?
What tern said made sense to me, but I have zero experience with those societies.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Would you agree that the society there places less value on the individual, and that this might account for wider acceptance of the death penalty for what other societies would consider a lesser offense?
What tern said made sense to me, but I have zero experience with those societies.
Yes, I would agree with that.
If you consider how many people fought over baby 81 after the tsunami, how many children were sold into slavery or were taken by people who lost their own children, how many children have been forced into joining the LTTE army, how many people had grenades tossed at them for trying to vote at the last election and how many people have been killed trying to vote, and... The list, scarily enough, goes on.
quote:How does the temporary nature of one's stay in any way change the severity of what has occured?
For the same reasons you have fewer expectations of a guest in your home, than you have of your own children. 1) A guest isn't expected to know the house rules, so violating the rule isn't a sign of disrespect. 2) A guest is given special traetment to make him feel welcome and encourage him to return and enrich your home again. 3) You aren't responsible for training a guest in the ways of your culture to make sure that your culture is continued.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, LadyDove has a point, but I'd have to limit to minor offenses. We deport people who aren't US citizens who violate our laws. But for major crimes, they have to do the time first. In rare instances, we do indeed put offenders to death even if they aren't from around here.
Ultimately, one would hope that the Singapore system has ways to deal with shades of gray related to this offense. Was the person an unwitting mule? Was he a first time offender? Was he completely ignorant of the local laws. It doesn't mean that he'd be found innocent, but it might be a factor in deciding whether to put a person to death or not.
Death for a first time drug offense seems worse to me than doing it for a multiple offender. And certainly, if someone is just a courier, death should not be the answer.
Anyone have sufficient details of this case to tell us whether there were any mitigating factors or, at 22, was this guy already a hard case?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
He was a courier - he was being paid AUD$30 000. Not an unwitting mule, but by no means a drug lord.
According to newspaper reports here, he agreed to take the job to pay his twin brother's debts - debts which he feared his brother was going to die for.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure his brother wouldn't want him to die as well.
Lots of people do bad things for what they think are good reasons. It doesn't change the nature of what they're doing though.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
El JT - I know. I almost added an (ironically) to my post but decided not to. (In terms of the whole brother thing).
In terms of the reasons not changing the nature: yes and no. Yes, of course he was still trafficking drugs.
But - I can see a moral diffence between someone who has made one bad decision and someone who keeps making those decisions as a lifestyle.
Actually, I think the most morally bankrupt are those who control the whole trade but never risk the actual trafficking themselves.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The French law banning private religious symbols for schoolchildren is not fine with me.
BIG religious symbol. A little cros, star of David or hand of Fatima is fine with everyone. And only in PUBLIC schools.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, LadyDove has a point, but I'd have to limit to minor offenses.
And minor, non violent, offenses are the ones I'm talking about.
erosomniac made the claim that tourists should be treated the same as locals with regards to all laws (including the Ash-Wednesday/hat laws) and that ignorance of the law is no excuse. I said that only violent crimes and offenses that are globally considered crimes, such as drug traficking, should fall under the "everyone is treated the same" rule.
As an aside, I don't think that death, cutting off hands, or other types of torture are appropriate punishments for any country. To deal with the offenses done by non-residents, I'd love to see some type of "Geneva Convention" that decides on a list of crimes and punishments that would be treated as international laws during non-wartime travel.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I recently read a book about the opium wars in China (The Opium Wars, by W. Travis Hanes and Frank Sanello). Basically, England exported opium to China to pay for their tea addiction. When China tried to outlaw the import of opium, the English invaded and forced the Chinese government to accept it.
Given that sort of history, I can understand why Asian countries would have over-the-top (to us, anyways) laws/penalties against drugs.
quote:BIG religious symbol. A little cros, star of David or hand of Fatima is fine with everyone. And only in PUBLIC schools.
That really doesn't affect my opinion of the law, or any of my arguments. I was simply making the point that many countries may have specific laws that we disagree with, but our objections to the laws cannot be expected to influence the way those countries run their own affairs.
Singapore has decided that drug trafficking is enough of a threat to their society that the only fit punishment for those who do it is death. We can disagree with that decision as much as we want. In fact, I daresay that the vast majority of the inhabitants of Europe, the Americas, and Oceania probably think that it's excessively harsh.
My point isn't that the law is okay, but rather that it's Singapore's decision, not ours. Singapore is not obligated to care how many foreigners may be upset about this. This man broke Singaporean law in Singaporean territory. It is Singapore's right to punish him in whatever way it sees fit.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"I was simply making the point that many countries may have specific laws that we disagree with, but our objections to the laws cannot be expected to influence the way those countries run their own affairs."
This is true, up to a point. I think many here would assert there exist theoretical levels of anti-human atrocity such that populations outside that country might rightfully expect to be able to exert such influence.
Do you disagree? Or are we just arguing about the threshold?
quote:"This man broke Singaporean law in Singaporean territory. It is Singapore's right to punish him in whatever way it sees fit."
Also true, up to a point. But it is also the rest of the world's right to accept Singapore into, or reject Singapore from, the community of nations.
quote:"My point isn't that the law is okay, but rather that it's Singapore's decision, not ours."
On the one hand, I am sensitive (as I believe you are) to the naive imposition of parochial values by one nation on another (cf. USA introducing democracy to Afghanistan); on the other, I believe there must be a foundation of universal human rights that unites the people of Earth, and that all citizens of earth share some level of responsibility for developing and upholding those rights.
With globalization, discussion about what those rights are and how international influence may properly be exercised -- even, or especially, considering the complexities and sensitivities of the subject -- is not only valid, but increasingly necessary.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:...on the other, I believe there must be a foundation of universal human rights that unites the people of Earth, and that all citizens of earth share some level of responsibility for developing and upholding those rights.
Discussions on the subject of the death penalty, even though I am undecided on the question, are irritating to me for this reason. The talk is almost always focused on the rights of the executed.
But he was not forced to do this. He was not tricked into thinking Singapore had laws different than they actually did. He had the right to make his choice, and he made it. The man mad a choice removed only by a few steps from assisted suicide.
quote:On the one hand, I am sensitive (as I believe you are) to the naive imposition of parochial values by one nation on another (cf. USA introducing democracy to Afghanistan); on the other, I believe there must be a foundation of universal human rights that unites the people of Earth, and that all citizens of earth share some level of responsibility for developing and upholding those rights.
It could be argued that opposition to the death penalty is one of those parochial values. Surely you must realize that not all citizens are obligated to uphold your definition of the lowest common denominator of universal human rights?
I personally believe that there is no objective right to continue to be alive. There is only such a right so far as we human beings routinely manufacture such rights for each other. The "right" to live is derived entirely from ourselves-it's not found in nature or science, certainly. Nothing else in the world except humanity sticks to that right.
This guy played his game, he knew the rules, he started play voluntarily. He rolled the dice, and lost. It seems strange to be outraged, to demand that the rules aren't changed after the fact.
I'll shed my tears for people who are violated because of someone else's choice.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is true, up to a point. I think many here would assert there exist theoretical levels of anti-human atrocity such that populations outside that country might rightfully expect to be able to exert such influence.
Do you disagree? Or are we just arguing about the threshold?
I agree that there exist such levels. I disagree that this constitutes one of them.
When there is genuine victimization taking place, then I think other nations have a right to intervene. It was largely through the efforts of Great Britain that the slave trade was shut down and slavery itself eventually abolished. Because the slaves were the victims of a greatly inhuman injustice, I believe Britain was right to step in. Similarly, I do not feel the United States was wrong to drive out the inhuman and unjust regime of the Taliban.
(And don't anybody come back on me and say anything about human rights violations on the part of our own forces. Insofar as that is happening--and it is happening, even if we are still the single most restrained superpower in the history of the world--I feel it is wrong too. I've never said that I believe the current administration is right in everything it does. I am making a value judgement on one single act, specifically the overthrow of the Taliban, and nothing else. And I do so only to show that I disagree with the assertion that it is a "naive imposition of parochial values".)
However, I do not believe that the particular Singaporean law currently under discussion is a case of victimizing innocent people. Do I think that killing someone for carrying heroin is excessive and brutal? Yes, in fact, I do. But that doesn't make Van Nguyen a victim. He knew what he was getting into, and he made the conscious decision to get into it. He would be alive today if he had decided not to break the law. He was not killed because Singapore arbitrarily decided he was an inconvenient person to have around. He was a criminal, not a victim. And drug trafficking itself is certainly not a victimless crime. A lot of people get badly hurt or killed because of things like heroin, and not all of them are the people who made the decision to take the drug. So it isn't as though Nguyen's crime would only have had negative consequences for Nguyen.
In other words, I don't think this law constitutes a human rights violation. And I think that for other nations to throw a hissy fit and demand that Singapore change this law would qualify as a "naive imposition of parochial values".
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether a law violates human rights can be quite independant of how it is applied (arbitrarily or otherwise).
For example, a law legalising torture would be a human rights violation, no matter if it was applied consistently as a punishment.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can roll your eyes all you like, Jhai, but my statement makes a point that appears to be going unnoticed here.
All punishments for crimes are a violation of human rights, from community service to jail time to execution. But there aren't any human beings on the planet that I know or have heard of who think that human rights are immutable.
Human rights are mutable when an individual takes some form of action that is deemed illegal. The question lies where to draw the threshold, further illustrating the subjectivity of any stance on human rights.
Which points out that, despite what has been implied in this thread, there isn't some objective, scientific definition of human rights. It's all subjective-yes, a man's life has been ended, but I choose not to be very upset about it this particular time because the question is subjective, and the man went in with his eyes open.
------------
I'd be interested in hearing what "international law" is, too. Hell, accounting can be subjective and still remain legal.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I personally believe that there is no objective right to continue to be alive. There is only such a right so far as we human beings routinely manufacture such rights for each other. The "right" to live is derived entirely from ourselves-it's not found in nature or science, certainly. Nothing else in the world except humanity sticks to that right.
The pope wants to have a word with you, sir. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
International law = convention (treaty) and customary international law (law made by the state practice and opinio juris of States).
Torture is prohibited by a number of treaties include the Convention Against Torture, as well as being prohibited at customary international law. There a numerous judgments from such courts as the ICJ, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights acknowledging that torture is illegal at international law.
In terms of a clear-cut norm of international law, the prohibition on torture's pretty much as good as you're going to get. Except maybe the prohibition on slavery.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note: The prohibition on torture is also recognised in the US third restatement of international law.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, so torture is against international law. Guess it's a good thing that's not what Singapore used.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
My point was that just because something is a law doesn't mean it's legal internationally. And just because something is implemented consistently doesn't mean it can't be a human rights violation.
The assertion non arbitrary and people know what they're getting into = not a human rights violation is not true.
I used torture because it's clear cut.
There is quite a strong argument that the death penalty is against international law, but at this stage it's still just an argument. That could well change in the future though.
( I was also responding to Rakeesh's question on international law )
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Torture is one thing that is accepted world-wide as a human rights violation. I believe a number of people in this thread, and in general, believe that captial punishment, at least for things other than murder, is also a human rights violation, and thus other nations (and indivduals) have the moral responsibility to condemn those who practice this human rights violation.
I personally am ambivalent on whether capital punishment is an absolute moral wrong. I do feel, however, given that: A) the data suggesting that capital punishment is a deterrent is questionable B) the United States judicial system has some fairly large flaws, resulting in unjust convictions and C) the cost of putting someone on death row (and all the legal battles that ensue) is huge
that the United States should not practice capital punishment, as any benefits derived from it do not equal the costs (both in the form of injustice and money). Whether these same facts hold for Singapore or not... well, I don't know enough about the Singapore judicial system to judge that. Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe the death penalty is currently against international law. If that changes, then it changes, and I suppose Singapore will have to re-evaluate its system.
I question the assumption made by many here that the death penalty is, in and of itself, a human rights violation. Killing people because of their ethnicity or their religion or because they looked at you funny is. I'm not convinced that killing people because they committed serious crimes is.
Nobody argues that drug smugglers and murderers and rapists should not be sent to prison because it takes away their right to liberty. And this is in spite of the fact that in the United States, at least, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are considered our most fundamental and "unalienable" human rights. But when someone is sent to prison for committing a crime, people don't get up in arms and say they are alienating his right to liberty. We all recognize that by committing his crime, he has forfeited his right to have the freedom to come and go as he pleases.
I don't accept it as a given that there are no crimes about which we can say, "By committing this crime, the criminal has forfeited his right to life." Mind you, I don't personally believe that drug smuggling is such a crime--but Singapore has decided that, within their territory at least, it is. I may not agree with the conclusion they've come to, but I am not convinced that they are committing any crimes against humanity itself simply by coming to, and enforcing, this conclusion.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's fine. What I was taking exception to was the implication I got from your previous post that it wasn't a human rights violation *because* it wasn't being enforced arbitrarily.
Incidentally, a "crime against humanity" is a quite specific legal term that probably wouldn't apply in this case even if the death penalty were outlawed by international law.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
And how many nation states must be involved for something to become international law? Conceivably, two nation-states are all that's required.
'International law' is a term that carries a lot of weight. It implies that there is one standard set of laws that all nations on Earth must abide, and have agreed to abide-but clearly that is not the case. What it actually means is quite different, and much debated.
quote:Torture is one thing that is accepted world-wide as a human rights violation.
You're wrong about that, Jhai. It's not even accepted in the USA as a clear-cut human rights violation (and now I'm operating by your definition of that term, not the one I was discussing earlier).
quote:...and thus other nations (and indivduals) have the moral responsibility to condemn those who practice this human rights violation.
posted
Oh, and Storm Saxon, right now I'm supping with the Queen of England. His Holiness the Pope will have to wait Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: And how many nation states must be involved for something to become international law? Conceivably, two nation-states are all that's required.
Not really. Two states can enter into a treaty, but that treaty is only binding on states party to it (ie two).
For something to become a customary norm (binding on all States) it has to have a lot of States. There's no definitive number, but examples of treaties which have become custom are the CAT (140 states parties out of 192) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (192 state parties out of 192)
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Torture is one thing that is accepted world-wide as a human rights violation.
You're wrong about that, Jhai. It's not even accepted in the USA as a clear-cut human rights violation (and now I'm operating by your definition of that term, not the one I was discussing earlier).
Oh, I think most people in the U.S. think of it as a human rights violation - they're willing to say that the cost of the violation is outweighed by the intellegence recieved from the torturee.
I don't necessarily agree with this argument in any way, mind, but I think that's how people tend to phrase it.
Oh, and I didn't define torture or human rights violations in my posts. Others have, however.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I was taking exception to was the implication I got from your previous post that it wasn't a human rights violation *because* it wasn't being enforced arbitrarily.
What I was saying is that I'm not convinced that the death penalty, when used as a punishment for a serious crime, is a human rights violation. If Nguyen had been an innocent tourist who hadn't done anything, then it would be. But he was a criminal, not an innocent victim, so I think that by committing the crime he did, he gave up certain rights.
What I did not say is that a genuine human rights violation ceases to be such when it is applied in a non-arbitrary fashion. I do not believe torture is a valid punishment for anything, even if some nation passed laws saying it was. I do believe that there are such things as universal human rights. (Even if such rights do not exist in nature, I think that if our civilization is to survive and become better than it is, it is in our best interests as a species to behave as though they do.) But I also firmly believe that the committing of certain crimes constitutes a forfeiture of some of those rights, and I think that liberty, and quite possibly life as well, are among said rights.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, I think most people in the U.S. think of it as a human rights violation - they're willing to say that the cost of the violation is outweighed by the intellegence recieved from the torturee.
I agree that most view it that way...but not all. That was my point-even the most fundamental things to you and I are not as universal as we think.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that there are very few things, moral or otherwise, that everyone agrees on. However, I'm very much not a moral relativist, so I think that there are moral realities out there, and some people are right, and others are wrong when they judge actions as morally good or bad.
Likewise, torture may be a fundamental human right, and those who think otherwise are wrong.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh's point is valid - and it gets argued constantly, under our "Cruel and Unusual" rule - punishment by definition must be cruel and unusual, otherwise it's not punishment. Where the line gets drawn as "torture" is arbitrary, and depends on the population consensus.
There is no such thing as "Human Rights" other than those proposed by civilization. Humans have no more "right" to live than cattle. We place a greater value on human life (for the most part), but that doesn't give a cancer patient the "right" to live, and there's no higher court to appeal to. I think the death penalty is a deterrent, and if nothing else, prevents the particular criminal from acting again. The only people it doesn't act as a deterrent for are those who don't consider the consequences of their actions, and those are exactly the people who bring down civilization in the first place.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think most jail time is cruel or unusual, and it certainly looks like punishment for a lot of people. At least, they certainly spend large amounts of effort trying to avoid it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: under our "Cruel and Unusual" rule - punishment by definition must be cruel and unusual, otherwise it's not punishment.
Could you explain further what you mean here? Is the term "punishment" being given some definition in a legal setting that is more limited than it would be in most other settings?
I think our entire penal system is geared mostly to punishment, and almost nil towards rehabilitation. I don't find the punishment of incarceration cruel or unusual, but I do think it is often wasteful. The time a person spends in prison should not just be warehousing, or an opportunity to make new friends and learn new tricks.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I know in my USUAL day, I don't get locked in prison :-)
Cruel: 1 : disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings 2 a : causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain <a cruel joke> b : unrelieved by leniency
It's been argued that incarceration is cruel, and I know I sure wouldn't like it all that much. It's been argued spanking a child is "cruel" as well. I can't imagine too many things I would rather not do, in fact. I would suffer. There would be grief. And, likely, some pain as well. What's cruel isn't absolute, either. What seems cruel to me might not seem cruel to others. But there has to be some incentive to NOT do a thing.
I'm not saying I particulary like our prison system, or even think it's very effective. I just don't have any better ideas, and if I did, it's not like I would have any power to implement them.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
